New Downtown Calgary Arena - Page 235

suburbia · #**4681** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Who's to say that we trust the government to build large projects now? If we are going to be spending money on an arena, then absolutely I'd rather any risk of cost over run would be covered by the private sector and not by the City.

I think it's fair to say that an arena has lower risk of cost over run than an Olympics also. Not only is it a less complicated project, but there is not the same time constraint. An Olympics absolutely must be completed by a certain date, no matter the cost, whereas if there are delays on an arena, it's not as big of a deal.

Milomilo - there is no need to be defensive about having squandered the massive opportunity that the Olympics extended to Calgary of having many billions of dollars from outside the city come to us. It is done. Move on. Now we're stuck with paying for things from our modest municipal budget, and we need to live with that.

milomilo · #**4682** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 8:10 PM**

Defensive? I'm not the one still whining about this. I agree, you need to move on.

DoubleK · #**4683** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 10:01 PM**

I'd really like to see the breakdown of the funding arrangement for the arena.

If the city is putting in more than 1/3 of the cost, I won't be happy.

MalcolmTucker · #**4684** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 10:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'd really like to see the breakdown of the funding arrangement for the arena.

If the city is putting in more than 1/3 of the cost, I won't be happy.

Same. Important to make a distinction between direct arena costs, and costs the city/others would have even if the arena was 100% private, like the continuing the current tax deal, sidewalk and utility work.

We will see it before the vote at city council to authorize it, have a few weeks to discuss. Given the former arena deal that blew up had $400 million in private support, I expect the private contribution to be in the same wheelhouse around 1/3 Flames, 1/3 direct user fee that effectively is from the Flames as it reduces possible ticket prices, and 1/3 public.

If the tax deal is presented as part of the funding stack, the deal will look very jaundiced, especially if the potential tax savings is not properly calculated based on what the building is worth (versus what it cost), and if future flows are not properly discounted to today dollars. Discounting the ticket tax may also skew the numbers away from a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 as well.

What I care about is the initial capital contributions. And that no bait and switch happens like happened in Edmonton where the terms of the deal changed a lot in the last few weeks.

milomilo · #**4685** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 11:06 PM**

As long as I don't feel like the public is being completely screwed, I'll be happy. That will likely depend mostly on how the CSEC representatives present their case - calling the city stupid for not throwing money at them last time didn't work, so the best strategy for them is likely to keep their mouths shut in public.

IMO, the deal the city offered last time was more than generous, and the fact that other teams got more from other cities just shows how stupid those cities were. But, alas, if it ends up that we have to settle for paying a little more, so be it, I'll be OK with that.

MalcolmTucker · #**4686** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 11:20 PM**

The city contribution of $170 million if my memory serves, since it had the the payback over 30 years had an NPV of only $65.8 million current dollars assuming a discount rate of 3.5%.

Corndogger · #**4687** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 11:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

Over 1200 low income housing units, field house, modernizing of legacy Olympic venues (such as the bobsleigh track that has since announced it will be boarding up), BMO events centre, etc.

BTW - I acknowledge you are not a UCP minion. I shouldn't be categorical with my statements.

BMO Center expansion never was dependent on the Olympics and neither was a field house. As for modernizing existing facilities, there's supposed to be legacy funds in place from 1988 to do that. WinSport needs to be audited not given more money to blow on God knows what. And why should low income housing units be dependent on hosting an Olympics? That's frickin' crazy. We can get everything that most people want without risking have to cover huge cost overruns.

MalcolmTucker · #**4688** Posted **Mar 8, 2019, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

BMO Center expansion never was dependent on the Olympics and neither was a field house. As for modernizing existing facilities, there's supposed to be legacy funds in place from 1988 to do that. WinSport needs to be audited not given more money to blow on God knows what. And why should low income housing units be dependent on hosting an Olympics? That's frickin' crazy. We can get everything that most people want without risking have to cover huge cost overruns.

But, the Olympics did offer additional one time money to pay for things, and we would have been able to use the grant money we are now using to pay for those things, to pay for other things.

Corndogger · #**4689** Posted **Mar 9, 2019, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But, the Olympics did offer additional one time money to pay for things, and we would have been able to use the grant money we are now using to pay for those things, to pay for other things.

The risks and distrust of the IOC was too much for many. The bid committee also did a horrible job. Too often it felt like they were pulling things out of their butts in an attempt to sell us on how great the games would be. Hopefully the people behind the current projects have all of their data and info backed up by facts and do a much better job selling them to us.

suburbia · #**4690** Posted **Mar 9, 2019, 4:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The risks and distrust of the IOC was too much for many. The bid committee also did a horrible job. Too often it felt like they were pulling things out of their butts in an attempt to sell us on how great the games would be.

What risks with the IOC - that they would not actually give the funds they were committing to? What is that based on, or did you pull that out of your butt, Mr. Corndogger?

suburbia · #**4691** Posted **Mar 9, 2019, 4:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But, the Olympics did offer additional one time money to pay for things, and we would have been able to use the grant money we are now using to pay for those things, to pay for other things.

Absolutely true, but unfortunately Corndogger and the rest will not respond to the facts you've provided, and instead will make vague comments replete with innuendo.

Corndogger · #**4692** Posted **Mar 9, 2019, 4:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

What risks with the IOC - that they would not actually give the funds they were committing to? What is that based on, or did you pull that out of your butt, Mr. Corndogger?

"The risks and distrust of the IOC was too much for many." Is what I wrote really that hard for you to follow? The risks were mainly the cost overruns and potential security nightmares. The distrust of the IOC has to do with things like them running a poor games which would reflect badly on us. What's your next stunt going to be? I'm amazed you haven't been banned yet given your behavior here the last couple of years.

milomilo · #**4693** Posted **Mar 10, 2019, 2:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

What risks with the IOC - that they would not actually give the funds they were committing to? What is that based on, or did you pull that out of your butt, Mr. Corndogger?

You're still not listening. Virtually every Olympics goes over budget so it's a near certainty a Calgary bid would too - who pays for that? The question was never answered. Even if it did not technically go over budget, an Olympics would likely involve a lot of additional extra City spending on things that the public does not necessarily want, and will have questionable value afterwards. It's easier to nip that in the bud now than try and curtail it once the hype train starts.

And something you will never acknowledge - at the end of the day, the Olympics they proposed was totally lame. It would likely have been panned as the crappiest Olympics ever. Yes, I know that was to keep costs under control, but at least if we're going to waste a shit ton of money, give the people something to be excited about.

milomilo · #**4694** Posted **Mar 10, 2019, 2:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

Absolutely true, but unfortunately Corndogger and the rest will not respond to the facts you've provided, and instead will make vague comments replete with innuendo.

We've provided answers to help with your inability to understand, but you've chosen not to read them. The same behavior as with any other subject.

suburbia · #**4695** Posted **Mar 10, 2019, 8:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Virtually every Olympics goes over budget so it's a near certainty a Calgary bid would too - who pays for that?

You're still not listening. Review of all major Olympics overruns found they were on major from-scratch facilities, which Calgary did not need to add. That was a major differentiator for the Calgary bid. That's not even going into the massive reserve funds that were built into the budget, and we had over the top praise from those delivering other Olympics about that - including the Vancouver head.

milomilo · #**4696** Posted **Mar 10, 2019, 9:19 PM**

The people aren't as naive as you. I'm sure the sellers of every other Olympics said the same thing - no one plans to overrun a budget, but it always happens. So with that knowledge, the people decided it was worth wasting money on an uninspiring Olympics.

Corndogger · #**4697** Posted **Mar 10, 2019, 9:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

The people aren't as naive as you. I'm sure the sellers of every other Olympics said the same thing - no one plans to overrun a budget, but it always happens. So with that knowledge, the people decided it was worth wasting money on an uninspiring Olympics.

A bid that promised a better experience than in 1988 and was held exclusively in Calgary and Canmore would have likely been passed by voters. Not many people want a ghetto Olympics that we have to share with other cities/regions, especially Whistler, B.C. We'll end up with better facilities the route we're going without the embarrassment and fear of major cost overruns.

suburbia · #**4698** Posted **Mar 11, 2019, 1:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

The people aren't as naive as you. I'm sure the sellers of every other Olympics said the same thing - no one plans to overrun a budget, but it always happens. So with that knowledge, the people decided it was worth wasting money on an uninspiring Olympics.

The head of the Vancouver Olympics himself shared how the Calgary bid was so much superior than theirs, and how he had wished there were all the financial safeguards Calgary's bid had.

One of my posts from November:

Quote:

Another voice of credibility I think we need to be open to listening from is John Furlong of Vancover 2010 fame. He has stated on the record, "This is the first Olympic budget I have ever seen that has as much protection in it. We didn't have anything like the contingencies in there that you have. So clearly a lot of pretty smart people have gone into this and they've wiped out all the potential for trouble with a very health contingency."

The above was to Global News.

Furlong's assessment was also covered by CBC.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...long-1.4890262

Quote:

Furlong, who co-led the 2010 bid and organizing committee, says not only does Calgary own previous experience hosting a Winter Olympics that Vancouver didn't have, he envies the $1.1 billion in contingency funds in Calgary's draft host plan.

"If you'd handed me that budget, I would have slipped out the back door and said 'thank you very much. I'm on my way,"' Furlong told The Canadian Press on Friday.

"I have never seen a budget that has this much contingency in it. I think that's a direct learning from Vancouver."

Unfortunately, a very major factor in all of this is that Paul Godfrey's group is not covering the views of people like Jim Dinning or John Furlong, and instead stoking the arena fires (yes, Paul is of the same business group that not only owns Post Media, but are affiliated with owners of the Calgary Flames, Calgary developers, etc.). So a clean and successful plebiscite will need to be preceded by many voices sharing the actual details and numbers and value propositions. It is truly jaw dropping that the leveraging cost to Calgary here is only about 1/3rd of the subsidy the Flames owners were demanding for their billionaire owners to have their own arena.

Really glad Jerome Iginla and the like have also stepped up and introduced some fresh air and reasoning into the conversation.

So milomilo - I've again demonstrated how you are wrong. Sad.

Are you now going to claim that John Furlong was not head of Vancouver 2010?

milomilo · #**4699** Posted **Mar 11, 2019, 1:47 AM**

No, I just don't care. The fact that a former head of an Olympics supports an Olympics bid is a surprise to no one. If he so badly budgeted the Vancouver Olympics, why is he now a position of authority?

Even if the yawnworthy list of projects that were in the 2026 bid did not technically go over budget, there is huge potential for scope creep. We proposed a lame Olympics, but once the hype train got going there would be plenty of opportunity for interested parties to use the excitement to get their own projects included along with it. Could anyone live with the embarrassment of hosting the ski jumping 1000km away? Unlikely, so you can probably add the cost of a new ski jump facility to the cost, but it wouldn't technically count as over budget. Ditto an arena, CSEC would have a stronger bargaining position - it would be too embarrassing to keep the Saddledome so the city would be forced to overpay to get a new one.

Anyway, this is of no matter to me as I am happy with the outcome. You, however, should look in the mirror and reflect on how the bid came to be, how it was communicated, and why it failed.

Doug · #**4700** Posted **Mar 11, 2019, 2:17 AM**

Two factors made hosting the Olympics a loosing proposition:
1) Increased security costs after 9-11. This is pure operational cost that leaves no lasting benefit. It doesn’t even create many temporary local jobs as security personal tend to be brought in

2) Decreased revenue from TV rights. Fewer people watch live events and TV networks have to compete with online for advertising dollars

The Olympics need a reboot and I have no idea how that could proceed. Even the NFL is starting to feel the sting of falling viewership and declining advertising revenue. Maybe someone like Amazon, Google or Netflix should acquire the Olympics.

A new arena might fall victim to pro sports suffering the same trends as the Olympics.